The Trump administration slams Ford for its ties to China

Ford and Washington Clash Over Chinese Manufacturing Ties

Activelifezero.com – A sharp public confrontation erupted between the Trump administration and one of America’s oldest automakers on Tuesday, as Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a formal letter to Ford CEO Jim Farley expressing what the department called “profound concern” over the company’s commercial relationships with Chinese technology and manufacturing firms. The exchange landed amid an already tense backdrop of escalating auto tariffs, ongoing trade friction with Canada, and a broader policy push to keep vehicle production firmly within U.S. borders.

The Letter’s Core Accusations

Duffy’s correspondence zeroed in on what the Transportation Department characterized as Ford’s deepening entanglement with state-backed Chinese enterprises. The secretary argued that the automaker’s recent strategic choices painted, in his words, a troubling picture of a foundational American brand actively intertwining its future with Chinese state-backed enterprises. Two specific grievances anchored the letter: Ford’s continued use of licensed technology from CATL, the dominant Chinese battery manufacturer, at the BlueOval Battery Park plant in Marshall, Michigan, and what Duffy described as Farley’s effort to facilitate Chinese joint ventures on United States soil during a recent Detroit Auto Show appearance.

The CATL issue sits at the heart of a wider debate over how much Chinese intellectual property can flow into American supply chains without triggering national-security alarm. CATL, headquartered in Ningde, has become the world’s largest producer of lithium-ion cells for electric vehicles, and its technology licensing deals with Western automakers have drawn scrutiny from both Washington and Beijing. For Ford, the Marshall, Michigan facility represents a significant domestic investment: the plant created approximately 1,700 jobs to manufacture batteries assembled entirely within the state.

Ford’s Swift Rebuttal

Ford did not wait long to push back. In a statement released the same day, the company branded itself “the most American automaker” and accused Duffy’s letter of containing factual errors. The tone was pointed.

“Secretary Duffy’s letter is a wrongheaded attempt to capture headlines at the expense of a company that has done more for American manufacturing than virtually any other in the nation’s history,” Ford said in the statement Tuesday.

The automaker clarified that its arrangement with CATL is a limited technology-licensing and services agreement, not a joint venture or a foreign-owned manufacturing operation. Ford emphasized that it owns the Marshall plant, controls day-to-day operations, and employs the entire workforce. On the Detroit Auto Show matter, Ford flatly denied that Farley proposed any joint-venture framework of the kind Duffy described, stating the company had not put forward such a plan.

“Had Secretary Duffy reached out before issuing his letter to the press, we would have been happy to share more details about Ford’s U.S. commitment,” Ford’s statement added.

The Lincoln Production Question

A third flashpoint in the dispute involves Ford’s decision to postpone shifting production of certain Lincoln luxury models from Chinese factories to American plants until 2030. The administration framed that timeline as evidence the company would remain dependent on Chinese manufacturing for years, undermining the goal of reshoring vehicle output. Ford, for its part, has pointed to the scale of its existing U.S. footprint and the jobs embedded in domestic assembly lines as proof of its long-term commitment to American production.

A Wider Tariff and Trade Context

The Duffy-Ford exchange does not occur in isolation. The Trump administration has been layering tariffs on imported vehicles and components, most recently imposing measures aimed at Canada’s auto sector, in an effort to compel manufacturers to build and assemble cars domestically. At the same time, industry analysts and trade experts have warned that Chinese automakers, which already outproduce every other nation on Earth in annual vehicle output, could begin appearing in American showrooms within the next five to ten years.

That prospect has generated a split in Washington. In January, President Trump told the Detroit Economic Club that he would welcome Chinese automakers to build in the United States, telling the audience, “let China come in.” Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and voices within the domestic auto industry pushed back, arguing that an open door for Chinese brands would undercut American manufacturers already struggling with high domestic labor costs and supply-chain constraints.

What Comes Next

The public letter-and-response format suggests the dispute may linger beyond a single news cycle. Ford’s insistence that it was never given a chance to explain its positions before the letter went public hints at a possible back-channel negotiation, while the administration’s willingness to name a specific company by name signals that similar scrutiny could extend to other automakers with Chinese supply-chain links. For Michigan workers at the Marshall battery plant and for the broader auto corridor stretching from Detroit to the Great Lakes states, the outcome of this standoff will shape whether licensed-technology partnerships with Chinese firms remain a viable path to domestic electrification or become a political liability in the years ahead.